Arcus's Posts - Think Atheist2017-08-18T05:08:18ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcushttp://api.ning.com/files/GYQaLOPi-XK3*EE13XhANG14zLLRwWk6ZvzRg-ophikim0MHtc5Rj8FJpBW7uo1e2fdg-Ok5yQqOEj2laIczRgGFgjF7-Kojhl8jmXDskSo_/untitled.png?width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blog/feed?user=2bq86m6gkw0el&xn_auth=noThe importance of a critical presstag:www.thinkatheist.com,2017-02-02:1982180:BlogPost:16151872017-02-02T19:08:53.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>I am a strong supporter of an independent and critical press, and happy that we once again have one after nearly a decade. Hopefully it will now learn self criticism. </p>
<p>I am a strong supporter of an independent and critical press, and happy that we once again have one after nearly a decade. Hopefully it will now learn self criticism. </p>Being an Atheist in an Atheist countrytag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-01-18:1982180:BlogPost:12489682013-01-18T22:56:59.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>I saw <span style="font-size: 13px;">Cem USLU's <a href="http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/CemUSLU?xg_source=activity" target="_blank">post</a> about being an atheist in a muslim community and cannot help but feel sorry for those of you which find yourself in such a situation. I'm not making light of it, nor am I trying to steal thunder, but I happen to live in an atheist country (sort of), and I thought it might be informative to see how it is in this "heaven". I think it can probably be…</span></p>
<p>I saw <span style="font-size: 13px;">Cem USLU's <a href="http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/CemUSLU?xg_source=activity" target="_blank">post</a> about being an atheist in a muslim community and cannot help but feel sorry for those of you which find yourself in such a situation. I'm not making light of it, nor am I trying to steal thunder, but I happen to live in an atheist country (sort of), and I thought it might be informative to see how it is in this "heaven". I think it can probably be best done via an example which illustrates how common people thinks, at least those comment and vote on the internet.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;">There's been a bit of a debate here lately whether police officers should be allowed to wear a hijab, and the idea was recently rejected by a commission. This has prompted a sociologist at the theological faculty to write an <a href="http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/01/18/kultur/debatt/kronikk/uniform/religiose_symboler/25299335/" target="_blank">opinion piece</a> (you can probably get the just of it if you run it through google translate) asking for a "rethink" (those are popular here) in the second largest tabloid, which happens to be a bit left leaning and islamoapologetic. In any event, the article in itself is... pretty much what you can expect of it. However, what is interesting is the comment section, and I'll translate some of the highest upvoted comments:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;">By thorfeil (611 ups, 2 downs):</span></p>
<blockquote><p>(The government monopoly on) Violence is not neutral as such, but it should be exercised neutrally. This means that those who exercise this power should not impose their personal beliefs on you, but be neutral and act objectively.</p>
<p>The opposite of neutral exercise of power is one which the practitioner expresses personal beliefs and forces you to deal with it when their power is exercised.</p>
<p>Personal religious or political symbols has no place on a uniform. At least not on the police uniform. Police must appear neutral, and the person on the receiving end of violence should not have to deal with police officers personal conviction.</p>
<p>Police officers represent the state, not themselves.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As an addition tot he above, umodererbar (255 ups, 4 downs) adds:</p>
<blockquote><p>The question is rather whether the religious should get a job in law enforcement or as other government officials ..</p>
<p>Can we trust people who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The discussion goes on a bit back on forth around those points, and there are some reasonable pushbacks to the second post in particular which get upvotes. (And some blatantly racist ones which get deleted.)</p>
<p>Thorfeil has a number of thread starters which are highly upvoted, but cand_alt chimes in (153 upvotes, 2 down) later with:</p>
<blockquote><p>And I look forward to the first policeman with a kippah raid a local gang of right-wing extremists, a police woman with hijab likewise, or a kippah wearer have a go at the "Muslim" A or B-gang (s)?<br/>That the author views the right of religious expression as superseding the right of freedom from religion is one thing, but that he wants to make part of the police unable to do their job because it is too dangerous due their religious hats is stupid .</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And lastly, 5string says (96 upvotes, 1 down):</p>
<blockquote><p>Can we turn this a bit around and ask:<br/>Is it possible that people with such a strong religious conviction that they must show this with clothing and other items, perform a neutral job in such a non-religious country like Norway?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>------------------------</p>
<p>Now, stuff like this is almost a daily occurrence in the major Norwegian papers and I'd be more than happy to liaise it. There is little or no room left for religion. And, I dare say, there's possibly hope for the world. </p>Post-modernism and its clueless detractors/supporterstag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-12-29:1982180:BlogPost:12409362012-12-29T22:25:34.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>I've found that the concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-modernism" target="_blank">post-modernism</a> tend to illicit strong emotions, either in full favor or in heated disagreement. I feel somewhat on a see-saw between the two disciplines as I've mostly studied economics and finance, which are considered the hardest of the soft sciences, and occasionally as the softest of the hard sciences. These fields rely heavily on both psychology and sociology, and calculus and…</p>
<p>I've found that the concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-modernism" target="_blank">post-modernism</a> tend to illicit strong emotions, either in full favor or in heated disagreement. I feel somewhat on a see-saw between the two disciplines as I've mostly studied economics and finance, which are considered the hardest of the soft sciences, and occasionally as the softest of the hard sciences. These fields rely heavily on both psychology and sociology, and calculus and statistics. Most people are lucky enough to not have a basic understanding about the concept, so I'll make an extremely simplified explanation.</p>
<p>Ever said, or have a friend say, "Everything is relative?" We probably all do, and on the bottom of that argument is the notion of post-modernism. There are no objective truths, which means that everything we know is subjective and open for interpretation. It often gets confused with the Einsteinian notion of relativity, though Einstein meant that reality is relative to the observer, not that reality is relative in and of itself. Einsteinian and postmodern relativity are important not to get confused.</p>
<p>From my experience, the hardest supporters of postmodernism come from the social sciences, especially continental philosophy and "soft" sciences, especially sociology and its many (<i>many</i>) related fields. They often try to push the idea onto the "hard" sciences (math, physics, chemistry, to a certain degree biology, etc), and state that these fields make claims that cannot be applied universally because there is no such thing as universally applicable rules. This usually pisses off the hard scientists to no end, which leads to events such as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair" target="_blank">Sokal affair</a>. </p>
<p>In my opinion, the social (soft) scientists quite often needs to be careful of their criticism since most social scientist don't really have a firm grasp of the evidence requirements hard scientists face. It seems to me that most arguments usually end up in antI-scientism: Scientists have for the most part been white males, thus science, and the scientific model, is only applicable to white males. Yes, a lot of the criticism is this ludacris.</p>
<p>On the other hand, hard scientists usually aren't better. Quite often they want strict objectivity to be applied to the soft sciences. The problem with that approach is that soft sciences more often than hard sciences contain political, and thus policy, implications. And much like the rule set which describes micro and macro in physics doesn't correspond, the same applied for soft and hard sciences. Post-modernism can be <em>both </em>true and false at the same time. It may be an important philosophy within the social sciences <em>and</em> disregarded as bunk by the hard sciences, <em>at the same time.</em></p>
<p>The major issue of applying strict objectivity to social sciences can be illustrated by our view of culture. Can you make a list of what makes an objectively superior culture? What measurements does an objectively superior culture achieve that an inferior culture doesn't? I can easily spot quite a few objective measurements in certain cultures vis-a-vis others, but I would hesitate to call one culture superior to another due to the political implications. Let's say I believe that my own culture is superior, which I could easily find academical support for, the policy implications is that I would have a responsibility towards other non-superior cultures. That leads to the idea behind "white man's burden", which I'd rather avoid. It's a good idea to be post-modernistic about it, and say that the Amazon stone age culture doesn't me to introduce them to medicine and iPhones, even though it would improve their lives on most objective measures. </p>
<p>As a conclusion I would state that those who view postmodernism as an all-encompassing theory probably need to venture outside their academies a bit more. And those who dismiss it as a useless piece of so-so may want to attempt to apply it into real world policy making. In any event, i believe different rules govern different magistra, at least until a more philosophically coherent mindset develops.</p>Churchill on Islamtag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-09-25:1982180:BlogPost:11852252012-09-25T10:42:26.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>From The River War:</p>
<blockquote><p><span>How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life…</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>From The River War:</p>
<blockquote><p><span>How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.</span></p>
</blockquote>On abortion, infanticide, and ethicstag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-08-27:1982180:BlogPost:11720612012-08-27T13:38:01.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Another week, another thread about abortion, another few pages of shallow analysis. In this great echo chamber of the streamlining of opinion and metaphorical burning of heretics, I rarely see anything original being added to this discussion and I feel the need to say my piece.</p>
<p>As an atheist I do not afford a voice in the debate to priests and others on moral crusades. As a rationalist I neither afford it to judges, politicians, special interest groups, celebrities, or, indeed, even…</p>
<p>Another week, another thread about abortion, another few pages of shallow analysis. In this great echo chamber of the streamlining of opinion and metaphorical burning of heretics, I rarely see anything original being added to this discussion and I feel the need to say my piece.</p>
<p>As an atheist I do not afford a voice in the debate to priests and others on moral crusades. As a rationalist I neither afford it to judges, politicians, special interest groups, celebrities, or, indeed, even to women themselves. To form my opinion on the subject I look to those best informed about it, and when it comes to abortion that would be medical ethicists and philosophers.</p>
<p>Allow me to address the most egregious example of a poor argument in the debate. It repeated ad nauseam, which does not add to its validity, and appears in a few variations over a theme. Women should have the right to choose since it is their body being ruined, their boobs getting saggy, their tummies getting stretchmarks, their vaginas becoming cavernous, etc. It is not rational to allow an argument of aesthetics to inform a debate about ethics, and even less so to let it trump it, yet it appears to always be presented as if valid.</p>
<p>The underlying reason why the debate is a debate in the first case is that it involves death, and death is something humans naturally fear and detest. Arguments against abortion are anchored in either the religious beliefs in the holiness and sanctity of life or the humanist beliefs in right to life. Yet we surround ourselves with death every day without questioning it, indeed our very lives are dependent on something which was once alive to die such that we can consume it since we cannot survive on inorganic matter alone, thus it seems fabricated.</p>
<p>The other major issue with these arguments is the extreme selectiveness in their application. Abortion spark outrage merely because the cause and effect are obvious, and the banning of abortion remain a practical possibility. Whenever these circumstances become less obvious and the solutions less practical the sanctity/right to life crowd tend to shy away. Imagine that uncovered manholes killed thousands each year, it would certainly spark outrage because the cause and effect is clear and the remedy is obvious.</p>
<p>Cars and guns kills hundreds of thousands in their prime youth without stirring similar outrage or having massive lobbies petitioning for bans. Obviously, in a world without cars and guns none would die from these two causes, yet it fails on practical grounds. Even in a world with much reduced speed limits and much increased driver education, or much stricter gun control and expensive weapons, the death toll would be reduced considerably. Thus my initial contention of just how arbitrary these arguments are, which leads me to the conclusion that they are merely masquerading as a general fear of death.</p>
<p>-----</p>
<p>One issue I have yet to see raised is that there is objectively no difference between an abortion after 12 weeks or 12 months, and one can hardly be in favor of the one and not the other while remaining consequent. However, abortion and infanticide evoke very different emotional reactions without being objectively different on ethical considerations. Part of the issue lies with the psychological experience of time, where immediacy between act and outcome determines the ethical considerations. The immediacy between the pressing of a trigger and a bullet killing another person makes it unethical to press the trigger, yet the unethical outcome does not actually start until the bullet kills another person. When time becomes miniscule the lines between act and outcome blurs, and when we experience significant delays in time the opportunity to inject arguments arise.</p>
<p>Therefore there is no distinction between aborting a potential infant and infanticide, if the latter is considered unethical in the future the former must be considered unethical today and vice versa. A further issue is that the line between what is considered life and not, and when the sanctity or right to this life begins, is necessarily arbitrary in the first place, and as technology inevitably progresses to the point of ex-utero pregnancy the issue of separation merely compounds.</p>
<p>-----</p>
<p>Personally I am in favor of abortion even though I well know that it inevitably involves death. Seeing as I am not religious I give no credence to arguments about some inherent holiness or sanctity to life, and as a realist it is difficult to place the right to life above all other considerations. I see that people continually die of good and bad causes, and while abortion may be a bad cause I find it less worse of a cause than supporting soldiers to fight and die on my behalf. In a perfect world there would be no need for abortion, but the world is imperfect and I need to make judgements based on how the world is. While abortion is certainly not a positive thing for society, I find it less worse than the alternative.</p>The horror which is Iran's leadershiptag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-07-21:1982180:BlogPost:11573732012-07-21T01:57:20.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>First off all, I am not warmongering, I am just clarifying the beast we are dealing with. I don't know what is the best strategy, I am "agnostic" about the best solution: I am not opposed to war, but I fear I must realize I will require proof in blood. As in that Iran will have to actually attack another country in something qualifying as "militarily". I'm not sure exactly what qualifies as the associated blood count.. But in any event I feel the attacks in …</p>
<p>First off all, I am not warmongering, I am just clarifying the beast we are dealing with. I don't know what is the best strategy, I am "agnostic" about the best solution: I am not opposed to war, but I fear I must realize I will require proof in blood. As in that Iran will have to actually attack another country in something qualifying as "militarily". I'm not sure exactly what qualifies as the associated blood count.. But in any event I feel the attacks in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18928078" target="_blank">Bulgaria</a> quite evokes my emotions yet. Or perhaps they do?</p>
<p>-----------</p>
<p>The Iran-Irak war is largely unknown in it's level of brutality. Wars are often associated by their brutality; Americans and Russians remember their brutal civil wars vividly, WW1 had the trenches, WW2 had holocaust. The Iran-Irak war had religiously <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CSCOAL,,IRN,,498805f02d,0.html" target="_blank">brainwashed teenagers</a> (down to 14 year old boys) be human "mine sweepers". They tried first dogs and donkeys, but they got scared. Teenagers didn't, they chanted of martyrdom while stepping on anti-personnel mines and deflecting bullets (their scarfs being the only and less than optimal armor) such that the regular army could advance. 10000 one morning, apparently, before their slightly elder brothers followed behind into the abattoir.</p>
<p>See, the Iraqi army was *vastly* superior to the Iranian one (not completely unhindered by the reintroduction of gas as a weapon), so the Iranians was forced to resort to the time old tested Human Wave Attack. Or BAANNZZZAAII! I am not joking, and a more historically apt comparison was the Russian mobilization in 1914 where only 2/3 of the soldiers were issued rifles. Essentially, someone's bringing a sword to a gunfight and that means someone's ordering swordsmen to what they know is a gunfight.</p>
<p>It takes a certain mindset of the leadership which can resort to this type of extremities of military tactics, a certain disregard of life which I am not personally familiar. It is widely uncertain what the casualty rate of the war was, but somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 million (and probably tilting to the top, imho). From these numbers alone, someone clearly took some decisions I'm not quite sure I would be capable of, though I don't think I would have made the extremely calculated choice of sending humans as mine sweepers. And isn't such that the choice to brainwash them thus was done overnight either, it had to be a sustained effort over time to convince someone to die voluntarily (unless Iran has a massive Emo community).</p>
<p>The kids doing this was called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij" target="_blank">basij</a>, which essentially are like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownshirt" target="_blank">brownshirts</a> (and there's 10-15 <em>million</em> of them these days), commanded by the Supreme Leader himself. As for the <em>P</em><em>resident</em> Ahmadinejad, he was a commander of sorts in the basij, perhaps he was a bit like a political commissar in the Red Army during WW2/The Great Patriotic War (+2 points on spin on the latter), overseeing the shooting of retreaters or something nefarious. He was probably more part of the brainwash<em>ing</em> team than the brainwash<em>ed</em>, and therefore must have, at least tacitly, callously endorsed butchery on such a scale.</p>
<p>That's a bit of the distilled version of some much wider events, it might be a good idea to get a bit of overview of whatever the powers that be are belligerent against. So.. Whatever does one do when this is what faces you at the negotiating table? A psychopath, clearly, but rational or open to rational arguments, perhaps?</p>Germany vs. Greecetag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-06-22:1982180:BlogPost:11450232012-06-22T22:15:53.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Today in Europe the Big Thing on TV was the Germany vs. Greece game. Check out the front pages of some European news, <a href="http://www.bild.de/" target="_blank">bild.de</a>, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/" target="_blank">BBC</a>, <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/" target="_blank">lemonde.fr</a>, and you will see it being on top of the sports headlines - and thus people's minds. Admittedly I am no fan of football/soccer, but I do like to watch those games I know is going to be part of…</p>
<p>Today in Europe the Big Thing on TV was the Germany vs. Greece game. Check out the front pages of some European news, <a href="http://www.bild.de/" target="_blank">bild.de</a>, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/" target="_blank">BBC</a>, <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/" target="_blank">lemonde.fr</a>, and you will see it being on top of the sports headlines - and thus people's minds. Admittedly I am no fan of football/soccer, but I do like to watch those games I know is going to be part of history. Last time I watched football it was the World Cup and I believe Spain won (it's hard to pay attention to.)</p>
<p>Today's game is one of those games which will go down in sports history - a classic David vs. Goliath. It's more than just another football match, it's two nations testing each other in a perfect substitution for war in a fairly civilized and regulated test of strength. The Greeks, which are struggling bad economically, are facing the Germans, which are doing quite alright economically. As a side note, the media reports steadily that the Germans have been calling the Greeks lazy lately, and that the Greeks don't like to hear it, because the Greek owe the Germans a lot of money which they probably won't be able to pay back unless they work better. </p>
<p>It is hard times upon Greece these days. Scenes like <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/05/somethings_rotten_in_the_athens" target="_blank">these</a>, from a very respectable source, and many other scenes and reports of devastation from all types of sources drives that point home very well. The Germans have some seedy areas also, but they are nothing near the seedy areas of Greece. The seedy areas of Greece are becoming slums, and Greece desperately needs German help to recover. This is what the game was really about.</p>
<p>The Greeks came to the game begging the Germans. I'm not joking, they are actually <em>wearing German flags.</em> Look, Greece played in blue and it's quite prominent:</p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/6/22/1340397692411/Quarter-Final-Germany-vs--017.jpg"><img class="align-full" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/6/22/1340397692411/Quarter-Final-Germany-vs--017.jpg?width=500" height="389" width="310"/></a>So after quite a lot of push the Germans finally scored a goal after around 40 minutes of boringness. Then it was a break (breaks in football are 15 minutes long and boring). Then it was a lot of boring until suddenly the the Greek player Samaras, which by happenstance is the namesake of the newly elected Prime Minister, score and there is a bit of excitement, especially over context. However no one believed this to last for very long, the Germans were relentless with like 17 to 5 shots on goal. And it didn't, the equalizer lasted for 6 more minutes until Germany scored again. And then it was clockwork, another German goal after 7 minutes, and 6 minutes later a final psychologically humiliating blow of 4-1. The Greeks managed to score a consolation goal in literally the final 89th minute.</p>
<p>Football/soccer is perhaps the largest secular religion in the world. Atheists should be wise to keep track of it. There's already been a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_war" target="_blank">Football War (!)</a></p>
<p>Also, the game made me think of this:</p>
<p><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ur5fGSBsfq8?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p></p>Why facts are useless against religiontag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-05-15:1982180:BlogPost:11229062012-05-15T16:05:47.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>I've been there too many times to count - a discussion with a religious person which seems absolutely impervious to Facts. Actually, it doesn't even have to be a religious person, it can be people holding very strong opinions on everything from political to economical to social to aesthetic to any type of issue. I know that I am correct, I can present plenty of evidence for my position and why the opponent's argument doesn't hold, but they are impervious to it. Why is it that my Facts don't…</p>
<p>I've been there too many times to count - a discussion with a religious person which seems absolutely impervious to Facts. Actually, it doesn't even have to be a religious person, it can be people holding very strong opinions on everything from political to economical to social to aesthetic to any type of issue. I know that I am correct, I can present plenty of evidence for my position and why the opponent's argument doesn't hold, but they are impervious to it. Why is it that my Facts don't work?</p>
<p>It is because the other person are convinced they have Truth. Having absolute certainty negates the need for Facts. There is no way to challenge Truth with Facts as they operate on different levels: Truth is underpinned by belief and Facts by evidence. A believer will usually have found a person or persons they trust to tell them the Truth, which is why most believers are followers. Since they do not trust me, especially since they've been warned against me by those they trust, there is no way they will let what they consider to be <em>my</em> Truth challenge <em>their</em> Truth.</p>
<p>Of course, there is no such thing as the Truth. But that's a Fact, and good luck trying to convince a zealot of that.</p>Brilliant Thunderf00t vs Hovind debatetag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-04-09:1982180:BlogPost:10959622012-04-09T21:27:19.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>There is quite a brilliant debate between Thuderf00t and Eric Hovind on YT (quite lengthy, but well worth it)</p>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A9BfsHsVGNg?wmode=opaque" width="560"></iframe>
<br></br><br></br>I think Thunderf0ot should have taken it one step further backwards, and said that mathematics is the thing underpinning the fundamental basic assumption that reality exists. If you can prove something mathematically, it can with certainty be said to…</p>
<p>There is quite a brilliant debate between Thuderf00t and Eric Hovind on YT (quite lengthy, but well worth it)</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A9BfsHsVGNg?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<br/><br/>I think Thunderf0ot should have taken it one step further backwards, and said that mathematics is the thing underpinning the fundamental basic assumption that reality exists. If you can prove something mathematically, it can with certainty be said to exists. Because.. how can you disprove Mathematics? You cannot quantify "Mathematics", there is no way of measuring it, and to measure you have to have Philosophy. You would have to use Physics to quantify and disprove Mathematics, and you can't have physics without mathematics or forms without Philosophy - so you are kinda screwed there. <br/><br/>However, can Mathematics be disprooved? Can we construct a better tool to measure reality? Well.. I'm not 100% certain, but I'm quite sure we cannot. Though I do think Statistics is the best evidence for Mathematics, and the best evidence for Statistics is Physics and Biology. However, if somehow mankind found a better way to understand the fundamental basic assumptions about reality than math it would be kinda cool. Theology surely isn't a better way to understand it, it explains exactly nothing, and it will continue to do so. The good thing about Science is that it proves things, such as Theology, which are <em>exactly wrong</em>. Something cannot be proved true, can only prove something false.</p>Free will and physics: A reply to "Do We Have Free Will?"tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-01-30:1982180:BlogPost:10403632012-01-30T18:09:11.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>There is one argument regarding free will which seems to come up time and time again, and it deserves a response. There was the week before last Sunday School linked <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/am-i-unsophisticated-about-free-will/" target="_blank">blog</a> making it, and the <a href="http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/do-we-have-free-will" target="_blank">blog</a> in the title. The basic argument is that since our brains are made of physical…</p>
<p>There is one argument regarding free will which seems to come up time and time again, and it deserves a response. There was the week before last Sunday School linked <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/am-i-unsophisticated-about-free-will/" target="_blank">blog</a> making it, and the <a href="http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/do-we-have-free-will" target="_blank">blog</a> in the title. The basic argument is that since our brains are made of physical matter/particles/molecules/etc, and therefore play by the rules of chemistry/physics, there can be no free will since these tend to be deterministic. Unfortunately, it's a not a very good argument, and I will dare the next person making it to run their brain through a meat grinder. Hey, nothing's lost, right? :)</p>
<p>The error in the argument is the underlying assumption that nothing can be more than the mere sum of it's parts - the body is molecules, molecules are physics, the body is physics (gross oversimplification of the argument, I know). However, this is akin to saying that the Brazilian rainforest is a collection of trees, <span class="st">L'Étranger</span> is letters on paper, the Internet is TCP/IP, or the Dance of the Knights is sound waves; Technically all those statements are correct. But all of those things are clearly more <em>in aggregate</em> than the individual components which make them up, you simply cannot get the sum from adding bottom up. On the other hand, if you take a top down approach it's quite clear that as you start subtracting one unit, more than one unit is lost from the total, and the same applies to organic life. The best illustration of the principle is probably the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect" target="_blank">network effect</a>.</p>
<p>That is not to say that our brain is capable of some sort of metaphysical activity <em>per se</em> (nor that there aren't good arguments against free will), only that the physical sciences may not be best tool for analyzing whether or not we are able to make non-determined/free willed choices. My feeling is that attempting to answer questions of 'why' with the answers of 'what' is misguided. We are products of nature with certain emergent properties, and free will may be the result of our conscious self awareness.</p>Liestag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-01-26:1982180:BlogPost:10361952012-01-26T21:07:11.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p> LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES </p>
<p> LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES </p>
<p> LIES…</p>
<p> LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES </p>
<p> LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES </p>
<p> LIES LIES </p>
<p> LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES</p>
<p> LIES LIES </p>
<p></p>Why the US must attack Iran ...and why it can't.tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-01-23:1982180:BlogPost:10338222012-01-23T18:00:08.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>First of all, one has to realize that international politics are purely Machiavellian - might does make right. Since the only enforcer of international law is the chronically fragmented UN there is precious little recourse if it is violated.</p>
<p>I sincerely doubt Iran has any plans to slow down their nuclear weapons capabilities program. There is no upside for the leadership of Iran in doing this - Gadhafi gave his up and was killed, Jong-Il didn't and could extort whatever he wished.…</p>
<p>First of all, one has to realize that international politics are purely Machiavellian - might does make right. Since the only enforcer of international law is the chronically fragmented UN there is precious little recourse if it is violated.</p>
<p>I sincerely doubt Iran has any plans to slow down their nuclear weapons capabilities program. There is no upside for the leadership of Iran in doing this - Gadhafi gave his up and was killed, Jong-Il didn't and could extort whatever he wished. These are but two examples of why getting the bomb is a very good idea seen from the standpoint of the Ayatollahs.</p>
<p>A nuclear Iran would certainly be bad for the western powers since Iran could effectively dictate policy in the neighborhood of the so called Shia crescent, currently extending from Teheran to Beirut via Damascus (which may soon be expanded to the Shia quadrant with the accession of Baghdad). Since Iran is both an OPEC member and highly dependent on oil exports for it's economy, a bomb would be a very good scare tactic against other major producers within reach such as Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Kuwait to ensure a significantly higher crude price. It would also spark an arms race in the Middle East, which I highly doubt could have any positive outcome.</p>
<p>In essence, a Shia bomb must be averted. The current strategy of applying ever wider ranging embargoes will not work, just like it has not worked against North Korea, and didn't work against Iraq, Libya, Myanmar, etc. This means the US must attack and disarm Iran, and also overthrow the regime. It must be done before seismic sensors picks up the unquestionable signs of nuclear test; An attack afterwards is not possible since a regime fighting for survival would have little incentive not to use the ultimate weapon.</p>
<p>The casus belli for the US would most likely come in form of a terror attack on US soil akin last years thwarted attempt at the Saudi ambassador, possibly emulating a type of Iran-Contras situation involving Mexican drug cartels being fed Afghan opium via Iran. I hardly think the American population would sit idly by in such a circumstance. Of course, Iran would stage such an attack to ensure they have plausible deniability of involvement, and thereby split world opinion.</p>
<p></p>
<p>However, the US has everything to lose in an attack. To name but one detrimental effect: The oil price would certainly surge, and a high oil price is almost always followed by a recession in the US, thus placing further strain on an already heavily strained economy. Those who believe the US will just steamroll the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRG) and the Iranian military might be in for a nasty surprise. The western armies are wholly dependent on air superiority to avoid large manpower losses, and Iran can quite plausibly make that quite tricky by extensive use of various ballistic missiles and multiple SAM layers.</p>
<p>The first would be anti-ship missiles which all fleets are highly susceptible to as they almost always hit and destroy their targets. Carrier ships would have to sail out of reach of these with forward submarine and lighter surface vessels to ensure safety. Even then, it's quite likely that a few of the forward vessels are lost, and even a remote possibility that a carrier gets struck. Iran may not have these missiles today, but both China (which is pissed about the marines in Darwin) and Russia (which is pissed about the missile shield) could supply quite quickly. A cheap way for them to test their military materiel and knock the US down a few pegs. The second use of ballistic missiles would be against cities in countries which allow US airbases in their territory, which would quickly turn the populace of that country against such acceptance. Substantial casualties and massive costs is far from unlikely, resulting in a bankrupt and demoralized America.</p>
<p>A war is therefore too costly, but peace is too risky. Unfortunately, the current game of brinkmanship seems to be headed towards war, and yet another century seems to be set to start off with a major conflict.</p>History tidbit: The Parthian Shottag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-01-04:1982180:BlogPost:10176262012-01-04T18:09:33.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>First of all, no, it's not a 'Parting Shot', it is a Parthian Shot. And here is its story:</p>
<p>It all starts with the Romans, which in 55 bce was run by Pompay, Crassus, and Ceasar. The first and latter were heroes of the Republic after their their conquests of Syria and Gaul, respectively, while Crassus is best know for putting down the Spartacus revolt and buying up burning buildings at, well, fire sales, but otherwise had not achieved any significant Triumph (Triumphs were taken very…</p>
<p>First of all, no, it's not a 'Parting Shot', it is a Parthian Shot. And here is its story:</p>
<p>It all starts with the Romans, which in 55 bce was run by Pompay, Crassus, and Ceasar. The first and latter were heroes of the Republic after their their conquests of Syria and Gaul, respectively, while Crassus is best know for putting down the Spartacus revolt and buying up burning buildings at, well, fire sales, but otherwise had not achieved any significant Triumph (Triumphs were taken very seriously in Rome). Crassus therefore decides to take on the Parthians, an Empire which was to be the mortal enemy of the Roman Republic, to take their gold and finance hos own Triumph.</p>
<p>After having spent about a year trading with some of the cities in current day Southern Turkey, he was offered 6000 cavalrymen from the Armenian ruler Artavazd, and agreed that the Armenians would halt the Parthian counter-advance while Crassus advanced through Mesopotamia. Unfortunately for Crassus, Artavazd was given a visit by the Parthian shah Orodes II with his Very Big Army Indeed and an offer of marriage between the shah's sister and Artavazd's daughter. Artavazd was in what is called in diplomatic terms a 'delicate bargaining position' at this point and essentially sent a diplomatically worded message to Crassus that, again in the language of diplomacy, the underlying realities of the previous deal had been somewhat altered and had thusly led him to reconsider. Crassus was not deterred and he pressed on to Harran/Carrahe, the Biblical birthplace of Abraham. There he finally got to see some Parthians.</p>
<p>Crassus could see around 10000 horse archers across the field, a puny quarter the size of his own army. What he didn't see was the remainder of the force, which Surena had hidden from sight. Surena was not a man know to travel lightly, he usually had 1000 fully armed bodyguards and thousands more less armed ones, 10000 riders, 1000 baggage camels, and 200 harem chariots (actual harem size unknown) - and this was merely his peace time entourage. The Romans charged and was suddenly met by the Parthian double-recurve triple laminate bows, a technology which made the archers more like riflemen than ancient archers, with a range of 300 yards and the power to shoot straight through an oxen at 150. After haranguing the Romans with his arrows, Surena then gave the order for his heavy cavalry to cast off their cloaks and charge. Again the Romans had never encountered anything resembling these forces, which can best be compared to medieval knights, and Crassus' foot soldiers were butchered down.</p>
<p>Thousands of dead Romans now littered the field, but when Surena pulled back his heavy cavalry the Romans felt that <em>finally</em> things were going this way. They stormed after the retreating archers - they surely must have ran out of arrows - but this was the final trap. The Parthian horse archers were as adept at firing backwards as forwards, and had certainly not run out of arrows as Surena had resupplied them by camel. The retreat was a ruse, and it worked, thus the expression 'Parthian Shot' was born. </p>
<p>Crassus was now convinced the Parthians were out of arrows - they weren't. His army was shot to smithereens, and when he ordered a final push, his soldiers showed him how their hands were nailed to their shields and their feet stuck to the ground with arrows, at least according to Plutarch's description. The Roman army was virtually wiped out (only ~500 eventually returned), Crassus was killed, and a 600 year long (!) war was started.</p>
<p>-----</p>
<p>However.. There is another interesting historical tidbit emerging from this event: The Lost Legion.</p>Economics - How little do you know? A test.tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-11-14:1982180:BlogPost:9327092011-11-14T19:34:03.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>It's quite evident that the forefront question in the elections of the past couple of years, and most likely in the next few years, is heavily centered on economics. Since economics isn't quite as easy as many believe, and there are a number of arguments made which run from being somewhat inaccurate to flat out wrong, some researchers made a survey to test the average voter's knowledge. The study came to some quite interesting conclusions, especially in relation to how people answered…</p>
<p>It's quite evident that the forefront question in the elections of the past couple of years, and most likely in the next few years, is heavily centered on economics. Since economics isn't quite as easy as many believe, and there are a number of arguments made which run from being somewhat inaccurate to flat out wrong, some researchers made a survey to test the average voter's knowledge. The study came to some quite interesting conclusions, especially in relation to how people answered systematically erroneous due to their political bias. Since T|A appears to be quite a liberal site, I expect a strong liberal bias (assuming people don't cheat, of course).</p>
<p>Below you will find the range of answers and a number of statements. Pick an answer (preferably among 1 thru 4) for each statement, and you can check your grasp of the field.</p>
<p>1. Strongly agree<br/> 2. Somewhat agree<br/>
3. Somewhat disagree<br/>
4. Strongly disagree<br/>
5. Not sure<br/>
6. Other<br/>
7. (Refuse to answer)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.</p>
<p>Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.</p>
<p>Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.</p>
<p>Rent control leads to housing shortages.</p>
<p>A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.</p>
<p>Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.</p>
<p>Free trade leads to unemployment.</p>
<p>Minimum-wage laws raise unemployment.</p>
<p>A dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person.</p>
<p>Making abortion illegal would increase the number of black-market abortions.</p>
<p>Legalizing drugs would give more wealth and power to street gangs and organized crime.</p>
<p>Drug prohibition fails to reduce people’s access to drugs.</p>
<p>Gun-control laws fail to reduce people’s access to guns.</p>
<p>By participating in the marketplace in the United States, immigrants reduce the economic well-being of American citizens.</p>
<p>When a country goes to war, its citizens experience an improvement in economic well-being.</p>
<p>When two people complete a voluntary transaction, they both <i>necessarily</i> come away better off.</p>
<p>When two people complete a voluntary transaction, it is <i>necessarily</i> the case that everyone else is unaffected by their transaction.</p>Nude celeb photos enclosed!tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-10-15:1982180:BlogPost:8971042011-10-15T20:30:00.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>A new book has been published regarding the Nobel Peace Prize winning atheist, humanist, polar explorer, peace activist, national hero, and overall general good guy <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen" target="_blank">Fridtjof Nansen</a>. Specifically, the book contains hitherto unpublished romantic communication between the elderly gigolo and his new flame, the 30 year younger American feminist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ueland" target="_blank">Brenda…</a></p>
<p>A new book has been published regarding the Nobel Peace Prize winning atheist, humanist, polar explorer, peace activist, national hero, and overall general good guy <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen" target="_blank">Fridtjof Nansen</a>. Specifically, the book contains hitherto unpublished romantic communication between the elderly gigolo and his new flame, the 30 year younger American feminist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ueland" target="_blank">Brenda Ueland</a>, including some rather provocative still photos of the 67 year old.</p>
<p>Without further ado, and as promised in the title, here he is, in full vigour:</p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/VqtprFjj5arzApNusP-LEBwHTRYLxcmK*uylC7ANElsdLm-RD2mmPj9-pAjL6gb87eFq*wl71MtSxdArwR1WbGGBFW6KEwIO/_SCCAIPub_GTitte_1557039x.jpg"><img class="align-full" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/VqtprFjj5arzApNusP-LEBwHTRYLxcmK*uylC7ANElsdLm-RD2mmPj9-pAjL6gb87eFq*wl71MtSxdArwR1WbGGBFW6KEwIO/_SCCAIPub_GTitte_1557039x.jpg?width=750" height="341" width="547"/></a></p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/Kwzr48e*6rCby7h4ieTLYcX4uS5oIHr9sHXwHuxlQ23gtQJ2jV0iA*IEJjf5xk0*1I1WM100Oo4IGnqhbvTQwa9np8uIMtb4/_SCCAIPub_GTitte_1557039x.jpg"><img class="align-full" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/HHQ2-Zrx4eKLXCE3ROxm1vhzu1wZgX40y2zqYQ2WXq8YeFmav2BG5acq8DKvnTiKAlyYOm7Kd9mrvt6aS0AFbfB*uEhCFsDg/_SCCAIPub_Escenic_1557279d.jpg" height="277" width="196"/></a></p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/01557/_SCC-AIPub_Escenic_1557279d.jpg"><br/></a>There i a bit of funny twist to this story: A newspaper published these photos on Facebook earlier today... and their post was quickly removed and the paper threatened with having their account banned altogether! This is no ordinary tabloid we are talking about, but rather the preeminent newspaper of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftenposten" target="_blank">Norway</a>. I personally can barely stop laughing at the comment made by the editor that "There is nothing unaestethic or pornographic about these pictures. These are exquisite pictures of a beautiful man."</p>
<p>Yay for US draconian sexual mores and moralisms, and their witless imposition upon somewhat more modern and liberal foreign nations. ;)</p>Polish new anti-clerical party receives 10% of the vote!tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-10-10:1982180:BlogPost:8916162011-10-10T20:55:15.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Good news everybody! Staunchly Catholic Poland just had an election and it did not end in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliament_%28expression%29" target="_blank">Polish Reichstag</a>, but with an extension of the current PM <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Tusk" target="_blank">Tusk</a>'s EU friendly government with 39% of the vote. He beat out the one half of the "Law and Order" evil twins <span id="articleText">Kaczynski in the process (a plane crash in…</span></p>
<p>Good news everybody! Staunchly Catholic Poland just had an election and it did not end in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliament_%28expression%29" target="_blank">Polish Reichstag</a>, but with an extension of the current PM <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Tusk" target="_blank">Tusk</a>'s EU friendly government with 39% of the vote. He beat out the one half of the "Law and Order" evil twins <span id="articleText">Kaczynski in the process (a plane crash in Smolensk took care of the other).</span></p>
<p>The big news, however, is the 10% share gained by the brand new <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palikot%27s_Movement" target="_blank">Palikot Party</a>. I'm sure atheists from all over the specter can share in some of their ideology. Amongst other things: "Palikot wants to end religious education in state schools, end state subsidies of churches, legalize abortion on demand, give out free condoms, allow same-sex civil unions, and legalize marijuana."</p>
<p>Congrats Poland!</p>
<p> </p>Sound financial advicetag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-10-08:1982180:BlogPost:8896172011-10-08T22:30:00.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Here are a few tips on how to ensure that you will have a fiscally sound future throughout your life. This is not a get-rich-quick scheme (such things don't exist in reality), but rather a slow and arduous journey towards financial security.</p>
<p>First things first, start saving young, preferably while you are in your pre-teens or teens. The goal is to have at enough money for at least 10% down for your first dwelling, typically $20-25k, by the time you hit your mid-twenties. This involves…</p>
<p>Here are a few tips on how to ensure that you will have a fiscally sound future throughout your life. This is not a get-rich-quick scheme (such things don't exist in reality), but rather a slow and arduous journey towards financial security.</p>
<p>First things first, start saving young, preferably while you are in your pre-teens or teens. The goal is to have at enough money for at least 10% down for your first dwelling, typically $20-25k, by the time you hit your mid-twenties. This involves a lot of short term sacrifice - no holidays, no new PC, living on spaghetti and ketchup for extended periods, no TV, etc - but it will pay off handsomely in the end.</p>
<p>Second, work hard in college and take as many advanced classes as permissible. Usually the limit to this is institutional, meaning a lack of opportunities or program restrictions, but working within and the the maximum the confines of the established system grants you ability.</p>
<p>Thirdly, go to a college you can afford and do not study what you <em>want</em> to study, but rather the personally viable option which will tend to pay off. I would strongly discourage studying art, history, literature, politics.. the et cetera-studies in which only superstar academics actually get a job and get paid. There is no shame in being an accountant or public administrator, there is shame in being unemployed and unemployable. Study on credit, study hard and correct, forgo personal ambitions of grandeur, and whatever you do, don't stop at the Bachelor level. A BS degree is called that for a reason...</p>
<p>Fourthly, you should at this time be out of college, have a workable degree, get a decent paying job, and you are ready to start building your wealth. Having lived frugally, forgoing many of your less-responsible/better start peers life styles, you should then start funneling your money into what is most likely to be the largest (and only) source of wealth: Housing. It's always difficult to find the right place at the right price, but if you fight your urge to apply sentimental value to a roof over your head, you should look for something which is close to a city center or coast line. These are two things which are being created exceedingly slowly, and properties in the vicinity tend to rise quite quickly and retain value. Having at least 10% down on your first property also insulates you quite well from short term property price movements. The preferred ratio is 20% equity as this gives you both the optimal cost/interest and security.</p>
<p>Assuming you are now hitting you late twenties/early thirties, have a home in which you have a 20% equity stake, and a stable job, a long period of stability follows. You go to work, do your daily allotment, come home, eat, sleep... rinse and repeat for around 15-25 years. (Children is an optional extra, if your finances allow.)</p>
<p>Now, you are beginning to hit your late forties. Income is pretty decent, amounts available for conspicuous consumption is quickly rising above the threshold of what you consider <em>responsible</em> consumption, and things are starting to settle. You are now in the process of planning for retirement, that weird word which you should not expect to experience before you are 70 (at least).</p>
<p>This leads me to my last point: How do you invest?</p>
<p>-<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Never</span> invest in the company you work for (or any company in the same industry). Eggs and baskets.</p>
<p>-<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Never</span> invest in stocks. You will fail as a stock picker.</p>
<p>-<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Never</span> try to "time" the market. You will fail as a "timer".</p>
<p>So what to do? You must first consider you investment horizon and divestment window. The narrower these times are, the more you should consider bonds, specifically <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Treasury_security#TIPS" target="_blank">TIPS</a>. IFF your investment horizon is <em>less</em> than 15 years and your divestment window less than 5 years, then TIPS. If you have an investment horizon of 15-25 years and a divestment horizon of 5-10 years, you should buy an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fund" target="_blank">Index Fund</a>. Whatever else your "investment adviser" (sleazy scumbag salesman of finance products) tells you, <em>stay the course</em>. They earn precious little commission on that particular product and will use all types of arguments to sway you. Don't be an idiot; don't sway; Historically and on average, this investment will serve you the best. Don't give a banker his salary for free.</p>
<p>-----------</p>
<p>Here's a few DON'Ts:</p>
<p>-DON'T be tempted to take more loans than you <span style="text-decoration: underline;">strictly</span> need. Sharing an apartment till 35 is a good idea.</p>
<p>-DON'T have more than 80% mortage to assets by 30, 60% by 50,</p>
<p>-DON'T have more than 1 after tax income in credit card debt, or more than 2 credit cards.</p>
<p>-DON'T listen to your cab-driver.</p>
<p>-DON'T bother to reach for a $20 on the street, it's an illusion. There are no "free lunches".</p>
<p>-DON'T invest in anything that sounds too good to be true. There is no such thing.</p>
<p>-DON'T live beyond means. Ever. The consequences are horrendous.</p>
<p>-DON'T be fooled by history or short term thinking. Consider a 30-50 year time horizon for all your choices, NEVER 3-5 years.</p>
<p> </p>Wage-price inflation spiral - or - How to really "Eat the Rich"tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-26:1982180:BlogPost:8750982011-09-26T17:24:19.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>From the basement of amusing theories, I would dearly like to present one fun way to play with the economy. Time to spark a wage-price spiral!</p>
<p>The basic idea behind a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price/wage_spiral" target="_blank">wage-price spiral</a> is that workers will respond to an expectation of higher prices by demanding increased wages. This in turn drives up prices which again drives up wages,rinse and repeat. It's a bit of an esoteric theory which isn't exactly…</p>
<p>From the basement of amusing theories, I would dearly like to present one fun way to play with the economy. Time to spark a wage-price spiral!</p>
<p>The basic idea behind a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price/wage_spiral" target="_blank">wage-price spiral</a> is that workers will respond to an expectation of higher prices by demanding increased wages. This in turn drives up prices which again drives up wages,rinse and repeat. It's a bit of an esoteric theory which isn't exactly loved by economists because it's a bit of a beast with an incredible amount of moving numbers which is difficult to manage. To get any idea of how it works you have to think in "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus" target="_blank">ceteris paribus</a>", looking at what happens when one factor changes while holding all the other factors constant. Unfortunately, in the real world, this doesn't really happen.</p>
<p>A wage-price spiral is often blamed for being one of the major issues underpinning the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation" target="_blank">stagflation</a> seen in the 70ies, a decade which was plentiful of economic misery around the world. However, high rates of inflation does not seem to be the <a href="http://www.forecasts.org/inflation.htm" target="_blank">major issue</a> in today's economic crisis'. In fact, deflation seems to be the real monster lurking around the corner. In addition, we have today floating exchange rates and independent central banks alleviates some of the risk associated with.</p>
<p>First up, it's a good idea to understand what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation" target="_blank">inflation</a> actually is: It's essentially how much a basket of goods costs today vs some point in the future, usually in one year. Let's say one weeks worth of groceries costs $100 today and $102 in one year. Et viola, 2% inflation achieved. If you get a 2% bump in your salary, you have what is usually referred to as inflation neutral wage increases. You have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_%28economics%29" target="_blank">nominally</a> been given a 2% raise, but in reality it's 0% since you can't buy anything more than you could last year.</p>
<p>Usually people demand (at least they <em>should</em> demand) a real wage growth.If inflation misses the downside of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_targeting" target="_blank">target rate</a>, real wages tend to grow rather quickly. So why not just set a target inflation rate of 5%, have workers demand a 6% wage increase, and hope prices rise enough to hit the target rate..?</p>
<p>Here are some effects:</p>
<p>As explained above, real incomes would rise. Workers would be better compensated for the same amount of work. Unfortunately, since labor becomes more expensive, demand for labor would shrink, increasing unemployment further.</p>
<p>On the other hand.. The currency of the country undertaking a wage-price spiral would <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_parity#Uncovered_interest_rate_parity" target="_blank">deflate</a> assuming that the nominal interest rate is not increased. It would make imports more expensive, which leads to less demand for imported goods, and exports become more competitive which leads to higher exports. Demand would therefore shift to more internally produced goods, increasing employment rates, and exports would increase, again increasing employment.</p>
<p>--------</p>
<p>So those were the effects on the wage earners; Now for the "Eat the Rich" part. Inflation is your friend if you have debt and most people have lots of debt. Inflation is your enemy if you are wealthy as it eats away on wealth. For sake of argument, lets assume sparking this spiral leads to around 50% inflation over a 5 year period and a 60% increase in nominal wages. Lets say the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble" target="_blank">housing crisis</a> continues and house values only trickle slowly up by 25% in the same scenario.</p>
<p>At the beginning a regular Joe with a regular job and a regular house has an income of $50 and a mortgage of $250 on a house worth $300. At this point Joe has 5x income in mortgage and is 84% <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-equity_ratio" target="_blank">leveraged</a>, which is an extremely precarious position. After 5 years this regular Joe will have an income of $80 and a loan (lets say it's interest-only) of still $250, which has been reduced to ~3x income, and a house worth $375, which is now only 67% leveraged. Joe is now in a quite healthy financials position. His $50k in 2011 equity has actually <em>increased</em> to $62.5 in 2011 equivalent dollars in 2016.</p>
<p>Now, think of poor rich Dick. Let's say he started off with an income of $1000 and lives in a $2000 mansion with 0 debt and $10000 in the bank. His income will rise to $1.6m and his house to $2500. However, his $12000 in 2011 assets has <em>decreased</em> to $6250 in 2011 equivalent dollars in 2016.</p>
<p>And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you truly eat the rich. :)</p>I'm starting to doubt Republicans and Libertarians read newspapers..tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-25:1982180:BlogPost:8737342011-09-25T15:58:05.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>One of my favorite methods of auto-flagellation is to follow the US political system. From this act I'm starting to gather that there appears to be a run-up to an election and one of the themes is that the US government needs to be cut in size and more economic power handed over to the individual states. The ones pushing the hardest for this is the Republican party in general and the Libertarians in particular. Apparently, cutting the size of government is the panacea to all social…</p>
<p>One of my favorite methods of auto-flagellation is to follow the US political system. From this act I'm starting to gather that there appears to be a run-up to an election and one of the themes is that the US government needs to be cut in size and more economic power handed over to the individual states. The ones pushing the hardest for this is the Republican party in general and the Libertarians in particular. Apparently, cutting the size of government is the panacea to all social issues.</p>
<p>I don't immediately buy this argument, in fact, I actually have sincere doubts about its validity. The US is a large federal state made up of many cooperating member states. When signing up to be part of the US, states agree to a number of things, i.e. to share a common external border, allow free flow of goods, services, capital, and people, and accept the dollar as the currency. </p>
<p>Within such a construct, what can happen if the role of the federal government is reduced? Well, it's difficult to say, economics isn't really an experimental science. However, it is a comparable science. So, let me think. Is there anything which has some of the characteristics of the US..? Hmm.. It's a tricky question..</p>
<p>Oh wait! There's this thing called the EU! It's made up of many member states, has a shared external border, a customs union, allows for the four freedoms, and it even has its own currency. In addition, the EU budget is <a href="http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/78/" target="_blank">tiny</a><strong> </strong>, only around 5% the size of the US federal budget; Surely, this must be a true Libertarian paradise. It's a good thing that one of the lessons learned the hard way these days is that having a monetary union without a fiscal union does not cause major economic headaches.</p>
<p>Oh wait.. That's <em>exactly</em> the lesson being learnt these days. The EU is pushing hard for closer fiscal cooperation. It's been found to be near impossible to have a monetary union - a single currency and a single central bank - without also having extremely strong and complex regulation of member states fiscal responsibilities or a larger common budget.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So seeing as this story should have been reported in the press (even in the US) I'm really starting to doubt that Republicans and Libertarians read newspapers.. Or perhaps, just like many Europeans want a United States of Europe, perhaps these people want an American Union. :p</p>Tide goes in, tide goes out - all because of Thortag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-19:1982180:BlogPost:8644112011-09-19T15:37:22.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Silly Christians keep reading the wrong book! Here's the full explanation of tides:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"The king called to Thor, and asked him what he thought he could best do to prove himself as mighty as the stories told of him. Thor answered that he would undertake to drink more mead than any one of the king's men. At this proposal the king laughed aloud, as if it were a giant joke. He summoned his cup-bearer to fetch his horn of punishment, out of which the giants were wont to drink in…</p>
<p>Silly Christians keep reading the wrong book! Here's the full explanation of tides:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"The king called to Thor, and asked him what he thought he could best do to prove himself as mighty as the stories told of him. Thor answered that he would undertake to drink more mead than any one of the king's men. At this proposal the king laughed aloud, as if it were a giant joke. He summoned his cup-bearer to fetch his horn of punishment, out of which the giants were wont to drink in turn. And when they returned to the hall, the great vessel was brought to the king.</p>
<p>"When any one empties this horn at one draught, we call him a famous drinker," said the king. "Some of my men empty it in two trials; but no one is so poor a manikin that he cannot empty it in three. Take the horn, Thor, and see what you can do with it."</p>
<p>Now Thor was very thirsty, so he seized the horn eagerly. It did not seem to him so very large, for he had drunk from other mighty vessels ere now. But indeed, it was deep. He raised it to his lips and took a long pull, saying to himself, "There! I have emptied it already, I know." Yet when he set the horn down to see how well he had done, he found that he seemed scarcely to have drained a drop; the horn was brimming as before. The king chuckled.</p>
<p>"Well, you have drunk but little," he said. "I would never have believed that famous Thor would lower the horn so soon. But doubtless you will finish all at a second draught."</p>
<p>Instead of answering, Thor raised the horn once more to his lips, resolved to do better than before. But for some reason the tip of the horn seemed hard to raise, and when he set the vessel down again his heart sank, for he feared that he had drunk even less than at his first trial. Yet he had really done better, for now it was easy to carry the horn with-out spilling. The king smiled grimly. "How now, Thor!" he cried. "You have left too much for your third trial. I fear you will never be able to empty the little horn in three draughts, as the least of my men can do. Ho, ho! You will not be thought so great a hero here as the folk deem you in Asgard, if you cannot play some other game more skillfully than you do this one."</p>
<p>At this speech Thor grew very angry. He raised the horn to his mouth and drank lustily, as long as he was able. But when he looked into the horn, he found that some drops still remained. He had not been able to empty it in three draughts. Angrily he flung down the horn, and said that he would have no more of it."</p>
<p>(...)</p>
<p>"When you drank from the long horn, thinking you had done so ill, in truth you had performed a miracle,—never thought I to behold the like. You guessed not that the end of the horn was out in the ocean, which no one might drain dry. Yet, mighty one, the droughts you swallowed have lowered the tide upon the shore. <strong>Henceforth at certain times the sea will ebb; and this is by great Thor's drinking.</strong>"</p>
<p>(For the full story, go <a href="http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=brown&amp;book=giants&amp;story=visit" target="_blank">here</a>.)</p>American Cultural History - What makes America great!tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-16:1982180:BlogPost:8542632011-09-16T18:36:59.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Well.. admittedly I've chosen a very controversial title. On my side of the pond we have a joke which goes that American Cultural History is the shortest book ever written. ;)</p>
<p>However, that does not mean that there is no culture from America. I would like to present something great, something which more than anything else signifies America to the world, a musical master piece written by a genius as a gift to the world of what actually makes America great:…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Well.. admittedly I've chosen a very controversial title. On my side of the pond we have a joke which goes that American Cultural History is the shortest book ever written. ;)</p>
<p>However, that does not mean that there is no culture from America. I would like to present something great, something which more than anything else signifies America to the world, a musical master piece written by a genius as a gift to the world of what actually makes America great:</p>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yctfXIqugXc?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Listen to the whole piece.</p>
<p>It's "The New World Symphony (4th movement)" by <span class="st">Dvořák (the funny r is read as the r in treasury btw). It's a piece he orchestrated as a gift to America and it's</span> élan (spirit/zeal).</p>
<p>Doesn't it sound pretty much like <em>every</em> adventure movie score ever made? Sounds like it could be the theme of Indiana Jones or Star Wars or Jaws or just some awesome Hollywood blockbuster espousing what America is really about. The Big Bold use of brass, the flutes humming along in the background, the violins setting a sombre-yet-lighthearted mood! It's a true musicgasm! :)</p>
<p><span class="st">Now, I wish America could live up to such music these days... Great, awesome, content rich, loud, fluid, even perhaps a bit commercia,l but proud of it. I hope that within a short time you will stop crying and wallowing-in-self-pity to Samuel Barber's "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRMz8fKkG2g&amp;feature=BFa&amp;list=PL4407507335CB5576&amp;lf=plpp" target="_blank">Adagio for strings</a>" and show the world the greatness which <em>actually</em> is possible to achieve in the Land of the Free(tm).</span></p>Is the War on Terror worth it? Some math..tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-13:1982180:BlogPost:8466542011-09-13T16:23:27.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Many people think the costs associated with the war on terror has been too high. There are many ways of getting some clarity on the subject, one of them is measuring the socialeconomic alternative cost of how many lives could be sacrificed which would have the same effect. (Take the numbers below with a pinch of salt, they are not the main point.)</p>
<p>First off, I'll need to establish some type of credible socialeconomic cost of the war. Nobel memorial prize winner Stiglitz has provided…</p>
<p>Many people think the costs associated with the war on terror has been too high. There are many ways of getting some clarity on the subject, one of them is measuring the socialeconomic alternative cost of how many lives could be sacrificed which would have the same effect. (Take the numbers below with a pinch of salt, they are not the main point.)</p>
<p>First off, I'll need to establish some type of credible socialeconomic cost of the war. Nobel memorial prize winner Stiglitz has provided an estimate of $3-5 trillion, and to make a point which will come apparent at the end I'll use the lower bound - $3 trillion.</p>
<p>Secondly, I'll have to put a number of how much a life is worth. There are many ways of doing it (ask an actuary), but the results tend to come out in the range of $4-11 million per life depending on the methodology employed. Since I used the lower bound earlier, and to make the math easy, I'll use the upper bound here - $10 million.</p>
<p>So, crunching these numbers together - $3 trillion/$10 million - I get 300.000. In essence, the US government should be indifferent between having 300.000 Americans killed or spending $3 trillion on the war on terror. This is the equivalent to the population of a smaller US city. However, this cost has been borne over 10 years, thus it would equate 30.000 deaths per year, the equivalent to an average small town being wiped off the planet per year.</p>
<p>Breaking it further down to a monthly basis (and with some very creative rounding) it's pretty much the equivalent of avoiding a 9/11 per month.</p>
<p>Too costly or not too costly? You may judge for yourself. :) </p>
<p> </p>I've seen Jesus!tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-10:1982180:BlogPost:8398972011-09-10T12:12:45.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Look! It's <em>clearly</em> Jesus manifesting himself:</p>
<p><a href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/uNhVu4eigdb2IMFD5tTYT9dcvbrcvFT*jpTBr3NO2BZ1hLygXRKi0VsEw3nH0gevP-T1a1f*K2ES3Sr4u*PuDEaUEhxT4*xz/Jesus.JPG" target="_self"><img class="align-full" height="269" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/uNhVu4eigdb2IMFD5tTYT9dcvbrcvFT*jpTBr3NO2BZ1hLygXRKi0VsEw3nH0gevP-T1a1f*K2ES3Sr4u*PuDEaUEhxT4*xz/Jesus.JPG?width=250" width="197"></img></a> See the head, the outreached arms, His white robe. It's all clear to me now! Jesus is here, he's communicating with me!</p>
<p>------</p>
<p>Oh wait.. false alarm. It's only a dog's anus... :/…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Look! It's <em>clearly</em> Jesus manifesting himself:</p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/uNhVu4eigdb2IMFD5tTYT9dcvbrcvFT*jpTBr3NO2BZ1hLygXRKi0VsEw3nH0gevP-T1a1f*K2ES3Sr4u*PuDEaUEhxT4*xz/Jesus.JPG"><img class="align-full" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/uNhVu4eigdb2IMFD5tTYT9dcvbrcvFT*jpTBr3NO2BZ1hLygXRKi0VsEw3nH0gevP-T1a1f*K2ES3Sr4u*PuDEaUEhxT4*xz/Jesus.JPG?width=250" height="269" width="197"/></a>See the head, the outreached arms, His white robe. It's all clear to me now! Jesus is here, he's communicating with me!</p>
<p>------</p>
<p>Oh wait.. false alarm. It's only a dog's anus... :/</p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/C9RN2UFraVZF4XVpr2s8B*MwopNDEvyc18IA6nFXvlDhNrOqxdq5m32chADMz6JZmVorUka*78kisFazfpvoXHQLiUfJoGmx/dogsbottom.JPG"><img class="align-full" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/C9RN2UFraVZF4XVpr2s8B*MwopNDEvyc18IA6nFXvlDhNrOqxdq5m32chADMz6JZmVorUka*78kisFazfpvoXHQLiUfJoGmx/dogsbottom.JPG?width=300" width="300"/></a></p>Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics - Who are the Tea Partyers?tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-04:1982180:BlogPost:8261812011-09-04T21:02:32.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>So I was wondering who made up the bulk of the Tea Party movement. From what I gather, it should be a lot of middle aged housewives. From what I gather, the Tea Party members are religious fundamentalist, socially conservative, fiscally all over the place, and <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">dumb</span> uneducated. Most of these aspects tend to be proxy's for female middle aged votes, but to my surprise it appears from the only…</p>
<p>So I was wondering who made up the bulk of the Tea Party movement. From what I gather, it should be a lot of middle aged housewives. From what I gather, the Tea Party members are religious fundamentalist, socially conservative, fiscally all over the place, and <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">dumb</span> uneducated. Most of these aspects tend to be proxy's for female middle aged votes, but to my surprise it appears from the only <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx" target="_blank">Gallup</a> poll I found that the members tend to be quite average, but a bit older and more males. So what gives?</p>
<p>There's a lot of stuff to know about statistics in general and questionnaires in particular. Any statistician must take care in designing the study to avoid that horrible word in statistics which screws everything up: Bias.</p>
<p>There are many sources of bias and equally many ways of dealing with it. Unfortunately, there are two things which statistics can't correct for:</p>
<p>-People lie</p>
<p>-People are dumb</p>
<p>-----------------</p>
<p>I think the Gallup poll suffer from these issues since the questions were asked over the phone.</p>
<p>Problem 1: Who picks up the phone? I would assume in religious fundamentalist families it's the man of the house. Presto bingo, more males. It's possible they corrected for this, they often do, but did they in this one?</p>
<p>Problem 2: People lie about their age. It's endemic and almost hopeless to correct for, since noone wants to be <em>old</em>. Hopefully the question asked is "What age will you turn this year?", but I don't know.</p>
<p>Problem 3: People lie about their income.. oh boy do people lie about their income. I know Gallup corrcts for this, but I don't know how accurate it is. Gallup probably doesn't know how accurate their corrections are. Do the Tea Partiers have a higher income, or are they just lying? They are Christians, so they know it will be forgiven in heaven.. ;)</p>
<p>Problem 4: People lie about education or are too dumb to know what qualifies as education. Since the Tea Party members quite often support creationism it would not come as a bomb shell if they lied about their credentials, just like many of those who promulgate creationism have done. Bible School or 3 hour "lecture" from a preacher is not the same as 'Some College', and neither does diploma mill businesses granting 'Independent Studies' degrees qualify as 'College grad'.</p>
<p>Problem 5: How many women would self-report as 'Homemaker', even if they are one? Some might think a bit of odd jobs fall in under 'Part-time Employed'. It doesn't, of course, in the same way that anything less than a 40 hour work week is not the same as 'Full-time Employed'.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I could go on, but I'll leave it at that for now. I'm still wondering who the hell supports this lunacy and I still doubt the majority are white, middle aged men with higher than annual income. Call it my gut educated opinion; I don't trust Tea Partyers to tell the truth.</p>The Emocratic problemtag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-03:1982180:BlogPost:8230922011-09-03T12:18:03.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>There's an upcoming in election in Norway. I've done my democratic duty and voted for the party I've always voted for - in thick and thin. Why do I keep voting for the same party all the time..? Well, for rational reasons. I disagree <em>strongly</em> with their unholy alliance with social conservatives, but fiscal and foreign policy is more important to me.</p>
<p>I always have to read the party programs of the two parties I would potentially vote for - the conservatives and the liberals -…</p>
<p>There's an upcoming in election in Norway. I've done my democratic duty and voted for the party I've always voted for - in thick and thin. Why do I keep voting for the same party all the time..? Well, for rational reasons. I disagree <em>strongly</em> with their unholy alliance with social conservatives, but fiscal and foreign policy is more important to me.</p>
<p>I always have to read the party programs of the two parties I would potentially vote for - the conservatives and the liberals - and each election it comes down to which has the strongest package deal. The liberals just haven't made it yet. The labor party is another safe harbor, though I disagree on too many points to currently vote for them, and I don't have time to study three programs.</p>
<p>Seeing as there is an election, there is a lot of election talk. When I attempt to drill down in people's political leanings I quite often find that they are not based on reason, but emotions. It annoys me greatly. Even stalwart atheists tend to fall into this crap, where politics is a beauty contest and not a science fair.</p>
<p>Looking again at Norwegian politics, there is now a 7-10% sympathy vote for the Labor party. This is just a part of the many problems with an Emocracy. Many of those who have "switched sides" have done so because of the terror, and because the leader and the foreign minister are handsome. When I ask which particular cause they are interested in it is either some grandiose talk of an utopian society or strong anti-business stance. I have found that the more utopian, the less specific points possible to argue, and the more anti-business the less likely the person is to understand business or economics. </p>
<p>------------</p>
<p>Last night I had a fairly long talk with some long-time socialists and it got to the point where they claimed banks are evil and control our lives. Especially the central banks. I forewent the opportunity to explain too much about banking, and rather change focus to central banking. My first statement was that central banks aren't actually banks per se, they are a financial authority. At this point I had three people almost yelling how wrong I was, asking me to shut up and listen, one even pulled out a dollar bill and showed me that it (didn't) say 'Property of the Federal Bank'. Two engineers and a marketing student - generally smart people - had very strong opinions on how the central bank works and how it needed to be controlled by the socialists. They were also dead wrong at every turn.</p>
<p>I ended up kindly asking them if they knew the derivation of the IS/LM or AD-AS model, which is key to understanding <em>the first thing</em> about economics in general, and how central banks does the 'M'. They didn't know and didn't want to know.</p>
<p>Apparently, knowledge is unimportant to opinion forming in an Emocracy. This is it's major flaw and will be it's undoing. Like open credit, most people just can't handle the responsibility of having a vote.</p>A brief illustrated history of the Norwaytag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-02:1982180:BlogPost:8214932011-09-02T15:43:11.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Well, this is pretty much accurate. :)</p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://jpg.artige.no/store/11/11292.jpg"><img class="align-full" src="http://jpg.artige.no/store/11/11292.jpg?width=550" width="550"/></a></p>
<p>Well, this is pretty much accurate. :)</p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://jpg.artige.no/store/11/11292.jpg"><img class="align-full" src="http://jpg.artige.no/store/11/11292.jpg?width=550" width="550"/></a></p>Norwegian humor - prepare to be offendedtag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-08-28:1982180:BlogPost:8102012011-08-28T20:41:25.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Norwegian humor is know to be similar to British.. apart from being much, much more offensive. In fact, we usually say Bristish humor is quite mild by our standards. Here's a few examples which has appeared on my FB wall, getting lots of likes:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>An american, an arab, a somali and a norwegian is sitting on the train to Oslo. The american takes out a bag of dollars, throw it out the window and say 'we have plenty of that where I come from'. The arab takes out a bag of sand and…</p>
<p>Norwegian humor is know to be similar to British.. apart from being much, much more offensive. In fact, we usually say Bristish humor is quite mild by our standards. Here's a few examples which has appeared on my FB wall, getting lots of likes:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>An american, an arab, a somali and a norwegian is sitting on the train to Oslo. The american takes out a bag of dollars, throw it out the window and say 'we have plenty of that where I come from'. The arab takes out a bag of sand and throw it out, saying 'we have plenty of that where I'm from'. The somali looks at the norwegian and says "don't even fucking think about it..."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What do you call a swede drowned in the ocean? Pollution.</p>
<p>What do you call two swedes drowned in the ocean? More pollution.</p>
<p>What do you call 10 swedes drowned in the ocean? Even more pollution.</p>
<p>What do you call <em>all</em> swedes drowned in the ocean? Solution.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Whats the difference between a dead cat on the side of the road and a dead pakistani on the side of the road?</p>
<p>Break marks in front of the cat...</p>
<p>-----------</p>
<p>Lighten up. We are equal opportunity offenders:</p>
<p>You know why people from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen" target="_blank">Bergen</a> cannot swim? They can't keep their mouths fucking shut. (Cultural stereotype is loud big mouths)</p>
<p>You know why people from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnm%C3%B8re" target="_blank">Sunnmøre</a> cannot swim? They only grab water. (Cultural stereotype is greedy bastards, like Scots or Jews.)</p>
<p>You know why people from northern norway are drunken social welfare exploiters? Because in the winter they drink until the sun comes up, and in summer they drink untili goes down.</p>
<p>You know what was the worst part of the nazi occupation? They only burned the houses in north norway...</p>
<p>-----------</p>
<p>Tomorrow I have a "cultural tolerance" training demanded for non-americans by the US company I work for. Even south-italians and greeks I work with find this quite silly... </p>Gaddafi fighter recounts her nightmare war (and war crimes)tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-08-28:1982180:BlogPost:8093442011-08-28T13:34:12.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>An interesting story in the aftermath of the fall of Tripoli has arisen. <a href="http://www.euronews.net/2011/08/27/gaddafi-fighter-recounts-her-nightmare-war/" target="_blank">Euronews</a> retells the story and interviews a Gadaffi loyalist which has committed heinous war crimes. Follow the previous jump to see the video and read the full story.</p>
<p>-------</p>
<p>One 19 year-old woman was a sniper. Now she is to stand trial for executing 16 rebel prisoners.</p>
<p>She claims that she…</p>
<p>An interesting story in the aftermath of the fall of Tripoli has arisen. <a href="http://www.euronews.net/2011/08/27/gaddafi-fighter-recounts-her-nightmare-war/" target="_blank">Euronews</a> retells the story and interviews a Gadaffi loyalist which has committed heinous war crimes. Follow the previous jump to see the video and read the full story.</p>
<p>-------</p>
<p>One 19 year-old woman was a sniper. Now she is to stand trial for executing 16 rebel prisoners.</p>
<p>She claims that she was forced by her family to leave her hometown of Zawiah and join up a year ago. She adds she had worked in an office until only recently. Then the nightmare began. The killing, and the rape by three officers she identified by name, including a General.</p>
<p>Now she can only hope for forgiveness from the victims’ families, or she could face a death penalty.</p>
<p>They gave me a weapon and each time they brought me one or two people and asked me to kill them. They were around me all the time, two on each side and one behind, and they told me ‘Kill them or you will be killed’.</p>
<p>Then they put some more under some trees and asked me to shoot.</p>
<p>Yes, I shot them, But each time I turned my head away when I fired.”</p>
<p>question:</p>
<p>“How do you feel about this job they forced you to do now?”</p>
<p>“I regret it, I really regret it.”</p>
<p>question:</p>
<p>“How were you treated in the Gaddafi forces?”</p>
<p>“Not well at all.”</p>
<p>-------</p>
<p>Her regret is not a legal defense and is merely an invocation of what is generally known as the Nürnberg defense. She claims to have only "followed orders", which is not an excuse for her crimes. Her duty as a soldier is to deny fulfilling orders which are against the Geneva Convention and international law, despite the threat to her own health and life. She has failed in that duty.</p>
<p>It is easy to be sympathetic to her story, but it should not divert the attention from the evil deeds she has committed. As a soldier, she must face the same punishment as every other soldier which has committed war crimes in the fighting: death penalty. (I am not in favor of the death penalty in any condition, and hope she and all other war criminals will be incarcerated for life. But more important is equal punishment for equal crimes.)</p>
<p>It may also be used as an argument against placing women on the battle field as their penchant for violence in clearly no less that of men, and the threat of rape is more tangible than towards men. It is also much easier to sympathize with their position, and it will be interesting to see how this case develops.</p>WTF America?tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-08-26:1982180:BlogPost:8065062011-08-26T23:50:31.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Seriously. wtf.</p>
<p>If you follow the news you would have recently read that the richest American, Warren Buffet, asked if he could be taxed a bit more to contribute. In France, which apparently the arch enemy of the US seeing as they don't support toppling of random dictators, a new tax on the wealthy is being imposed. In fact, following in the footsteps of Buffet, the rich people asked the French government to tax incomes over €500k (~$722k) at an addition 3% until the French government…</p>
<p>Seriously. wtf.</p>
<p>If you follow the news you would have recently read that the richest American, Warren Buffet, asked if he could be taxed a bit more to contribute. In France, which apparently the arch enemy of the US seeing as they don't support toppling of random dictators, a new tax on the wealthy is being imposed. In fact, following in the footsteps of Buffet, the rich people asked the French government to tax incomes over €500k (~$722k) at an addition 3% until the French government deficit was reduced. The French government heard the rich people and the tax in now in effect until the deficit closes to 3%, which is expected in 2013.</p>
<p>See, <em>that's</em> how a AAA society is run. ;)</p>
<p> </p>Ahmedinejadismstag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-08-04:1982180:BlogPost:7604182011-08-04T15:59:00.000ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Yesterday there was an interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Euronews. I would recommend watching the interview itself to get the full impact on just the level of crazy this leader is able spout, however the easiest is to read the <a href="http://www.euronews.net/2011/08/04/ahmadinejad---the-full-exclusive-interview/" target="_blank">transcript</a>. Just like how former Dear Leader Bush coined a number of Bushisms, the Iranians does not like coming in second and have sent…</p>
<p>Yesterday there was an interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Euronews. I would recommend watching the interview itself to get the full impact on just the level of crazy this leader is able spout, however the easiest is to read the <a href="http://www.euronews.net/2011/08/04/ahmadinejad---the-full-exclusive-interview/" target="_blank">transcript</a>. Just like how former Dear Leader Bush coined a number of Bushisms, the Iranians does not like coming in second and have sent their best contender.</p>
<p>(It should be noted that the President of Iran has a very weak position as the majority of the power in the country lies with the Ayatollah Khamenei and the religious leadership.)</p>
<p>A few of the most lol quotes:</p>
<p>"A completely free election was held in Iran. It was the most free election in the world."</p>
<p>"Those who express their views about the basic European issues are imprisoned."</p>
<p>(Regarding demonstrators in Europe) "There is no one there listening to them. Accept my word.”</p>
<p>(Comparing Greece and Spain to Iran) “No, no. the situation is much worse in Europe….”</p>
<p>"The Iranian people are paying the price for the erroneous policies of the European leaders.”</p>
<p>“These are the erroneous policies of the European leaders. We haven’t done anything wrong."</p>
<p>"We’re a free society in which everyone can express his or her views. There’s no problem there."</p>
<p>"The judiciary in Iran is independent."</p>
<p>“Nobody is in prison just for expressing their views."</p>
<p>“Is nuclear activity forbidden?”</p>
<p>And the clincher:</p>
<p>“The production of uranium at 20 per cent is just for peaceful purposes."</p>